Henley v. Texas (original by judge richardson)
Annotate this CaseAppellant Gregory Henley was found guilty by a jury of misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury to a family member. He was sentenced to confinement for 200 days. On appeal, he contended that the trial court excluded evidence that appellant sought to introduce in support of his claim of defense of a third person. Specifically, appellant claimed that he was justified in pulling his ex-wife out of her car by her hair, punching her in the face several times (resulting in two severe black eyes and several cuts and bruises), and hitting her head against the concrete driveway, because he was concerned that his ex-wife was not a fit parent and wanted to protect his two sons from the possibility of being harmed at some future time by people who were not present at the time of the assault. The Second Court of Appeals concluded that appellant should have been able to present evidence in support of this purported justification defense. The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed: appellant’s claim in no way constituted a valid claim of defense of a third person. "Even if appellant’s concerns were legitimate, the evidence he sought to introduce did not give rise to any type of justification defense. Appellant’s ex-wife posed no immediate threat to his sons. In fact, no one posed an immediate threat to his sons. The evidence appellant sought to introduce in support of his purported justification defense was irrelevant. Evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible." The Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and reinstated appellant’s conviction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.